The recent controversy involving fake and substandard medicines has once again triggered public anger and calls for enforcement. These reactions are understandable. But they risk missing a deeper and more uncomfortable truth:

In a society where many people lack the education or information needed to distinguish safe medicines from dangerous ones, responsibility cannot rest with consumers. It must rest with the system.

And systems fail not only because of bad actors, but because of weak professional standards at critical decision points.

Medicines are not ordinary products. They are complex, high-risk interventions whose use depends on decisions made long before a patient ever takes a pill or receives an injection. Those decisions require interpreting clinical trial evidence, weighing benefit against risk under uncertainty, monitoring safety signals after approval, determining when restrictions or recalls are warranted, and drawing ethical boundaries around promotion and access.

These are not routine administrative tasks. They demand structured judgment under conditions of incomplete information and high stakes. Yet in many health systems, individuals can still exercise substantial authority over medicines without formal preparation for these responsibilities.

Why being a doctor is not enough

There is a persistent assumption that medical doctors are automatically equipped to make these decisions. They are not.

Clinical training prepares doctors to diagnose and treat individual patients. It does not systematically prepare them to govern medicines at a population level—where decisions involve aggregate data, regulatory thresholds, post-market surveillance, and the constant tension between science, safety, and commercial pressure.

In more mature systems, this gap is openly acknowledged. Doctors who move into senior roles in pharmaceutical companies or medicines oversight undergo specialized training in pharmaceutical medicine, a distinct discipline that sits between clinical science, regulation, safety, and ethics. Where this distinction is blurred or ignored, risk increases.

At its core, pharmaceutical medicine trains professionals to understand and manage the full lifecycle of a medicine, including:

• how clinical trials are designed, interpreted, and sometimes misinterpreted
• how scientific evidence should be critically appraised, not merely cited
• how drug safety is monitored after approval and when action is required
• how regulatory and oversight decisions affect real-world use and trust
• how ethical boundaries apply to communication, promotion, and access

This knowledge is not assumed. It is formally taught, assessed, and refreshed over time.

Low public literacy raises the bar for professionals

In societies with high health literacy, patients, journalists, and civil society act as informal safeguards. Weak evidence is questioned, dubious products are challenged, and errors are exposed early.

In lower-literacy environments, that safety net is thin.

When the public cannot reasonably evaluate what is safe or legitimate, professional judgment becomes the final line of defense. This makes the quality of training for those professionals—not just their intentions or credentials—decisive. Weak or mismatched training at that level does not merely increase risk. It institutionalizes it.

Training is not blame; it’s infrastructure

Public debate often focuses on accountability after something goes wrong. Education addresses something more fundamental: capacity.

Requiring structured, advanced training for senior medical leaders and those involved in medicines oversight is not about elitism or punishment. It is about building guardrails into the system so that fewer bad decisions are possible in the first place. Continuing education should be routine, role-specific, and tied to real responsibilities—not occasional seminars attended to satisfy formal requirements.

Strengthening professional training benefits not only patients, but also responsible industry players who already invest heavily in quality, compliance, and safety. Higher, clearer standards reduce ambiguity and protect all the stakeholders involved.

Prevention is more effective

Raids, investigations, and suspensions happen after harm has occurred or nearly occurred. Education intervenes earlier—when evidence is first reviewed, when documentation appears incomplete, when pricing or sourcing raises red flags, and when safety signals emerge quietly.

This is where public protection truly begins.

If we want fewer medicine scandals, we need a clear and defensible standard:

Anyone — doctor or otherwise — who holds decision-making authority over medicines should receive specialized training for that role and be periodically re-trained to keep pace with evolving science and risk.

In a system where many patients cannot protect themselves, the least we can do is ensure that those entrusted with medicines genuinely understand what they are deciding. – Rappler.com

Dr. Jaemin Park is an adjunct professor at the University of the Philippines College of Public Health, and a managing partner of Heal Venture Lab from Singapore. He works across Southeast Asia on healthcare investment, medical innovation and health system reform.